Patent Litigation

In a suit involving multiple patents relating to equipment and processes for treating hazardous waste, the Firm obtained a jury verdict that our client’s patents were willfully infringed and awarding actual damages exceeding $2.1 million. The Court entered a Final Judgment in which it trebled the damages, awarded attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest, and entered a permanent injunction. In total, the judgment approached $9 million.

The Firm’s client, a supplier of software and services allowing universities to provide online teaching, was accused of infringing a patent relating to computer aided teaching. We were successful in obtaining summary judgment of no infringement. The Markman claim construction we proposed was adopted and summary judgment of no infringement entered before formal discovery was opened.

Representing a dental implant manufacturer accused of infringing a competitor’s patent, the Firm located prior art to invalidate the plaintiff’s patent. Thereafter, a confidential settlement was entered and the plaintiff’s claims against our client were all dismissed with prejudice.

We represented the owner of patents and other proprietary technology relating to degradable plastic films and methods and apparatus for using the films for daily cover in landfills. The suit was brought against former employees who had started a competing business. The Firm was successful in obtaining a permanent injunction against continued infringement and a final judgment that our client’s patents were all valid and that dismissed all defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Other terms were provided in a confidential settlement agreement.

The Firm represented the owner of a patent on subsea pipeline joints in a case brought against a direct competitor. Following the trial court’s Markman ruling on the meaning of the patent claims, the competitor purchased our client’s patent for an up-front payment and a continuing royalty.

We represented a Fortune 500 company that was accused of infringing four U.S. patents relating to methods for preparing and using metallocene catalysts to control the properties of polyolefins. Although the jury found certain of the patent claims to be infringed, the Firm was successful in defeating the charge of willful infringement and treble damages. The appeal involved the propriety of the District Court’s decision to preclude the jury from considering certain of our client’s defenses. The appeal was terminated upon the merger of our client and the patent owner.

Representing the patent owner in a case where it was alleged that the defendants had infringed five of our client’s screen patents, a permanent injunction and final judgment were entered declaring our client’s patents valid and infringed. Other terms are provided in a confidential settlement agreement.

Representing the owner of patents relating to screen assemblies used on vibratory screening machines in a declaratory judgment action, the Firm successfully proved to the jury that our client’s three patents were valid and infringed. A permanent injunction and final judgment were entered in which the defendants were ordered to pay damages and interest of more than $430,000.

Representing the owner of a patent on a screen assembly used on vibratory screening machines, the Firm obtained a jury verdict of willful infringement and damages of $4.0 million. The District Court entered JNOV for defendant, finding the client’s patent had been obtained by inequitable conduct. On appeal, the Firm was successful in having the District Court’s judgment reversed and the jury’s verdict reinstated. A permanent injunction and judgment were entered that our client’s patent was valid, enforceable and infringed, and ordering defendant to pay damages exceeding $7.5 million.

Representing the owner of a patent on a downhole tool, the Firm was successful in obtaining a jury verdict that the patent was valid and infringed and that defendants had not shown the patent to be unenforceable for alleged inequitable conduct. The trial judge entered a judgment that the patent was unenforceable, not infringed and awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendants. On appeal, we were successful in having the trial court’s judgment reversed and the jury’s verdict of infringement reinstated. The case settled favorably prior to a trial on damages.

The Firm represented a sporting goods retailer accused of infringing plaintiff’s patent through the use of seven “ski decks” located in various stores and used in conducting ski lessons. The jury found that only one of the seven accused ski decks infringed, and then only for a short period of time. Nominal damages were awarded.

The Firm represented the owner of a patent on a method for creating a textured surface on pre-formed concrete walls. We were successful in obtaining a jury verdict that the defendants willfully infringed our client’s patent and that our client was entitled to lost profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and interest. The Firm successfully defended the judgment on appeal. The total award to our client was $7.5 million.

Trade Secret Litigation

Our client, a distributor of decorative candles, was alleged to have conspired to misappropriate the trade secrets of plaintiff. We were successful in having all the claims against our client dismissed before trial.Following initial discovery, a settlement was reached in a case where our client was accused of misappropriating customer lists and proprietary procedures for providing real estate tax services. The settlement permitted our client, a former employee of the plaintiff, to continue to operate his newly-formed business.

The Firm successfully defended a Fortune 500 client accused of unlawfully hiring-away a competitor’s employees and of misappropriating trade secrets that related to oilfield drill bits. After preliminary discovery, a confidential settlement was entered which permitted our client to continue its business operations.Representing a client accused of misappropriating trade secrets relating to subsea wellheads, the Firm was successful in having a preliminary injunction denied.

Our client was accused of misappropriating trade secrets relating to automated hydro-blasting equipment used in performing refinery maintenance. The Firm was successful at trial in proving to the jury that our client had not misappropriated trade secrets. However, based on erroneous instructions to the jury, the jury found that our client had misappropriated "confidential information." On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the jury’s finding of no trade secret theft and reversed the judgment against our client, the Court holding that there was no cause of action in Texas for misappropriation of "confidential information" that did not rise to the level of a trade secret.

The Firm represented a company owning rights in a proprietary pet litter formula in a trade secret action brought against former investors. Following discovery, the case settled favorably.

The Firm represented a party accused of misappropriating trade secrets that related to perforating equipment used in oil wells. The Firm was successful in obtaining summary judgment that our client had not misappropriated trade secrets, and that no confidential relationship existed between our client and the plaintiff. We were successful on appeal in having the judgment affirmed on all grounds.

Representing the owner of proprietary soil formulations, the Firm was successful in obtaining a judgment and permanent injunction that prevented our client’s former employees from duplicating soil formulations, recruiting our client’s employees, and from disparaging our client’s business.

Trademark Litigation

The Firm was successful in defeating plaintiff’s motion for a TRO in an action where our client was accused of violating copyrights, trademarks, and committing acts of unfair competition.

Representing the accused trademark infringer, following minimal discovery, the Firm negotiated a settlement in which the competitor/plaintiff agreed to pay our client $75,000 to convert to a new mark. The settlement also permitted our client to exhaust its remaining inventory of products before converting to its new mark.

The Firm represented the accused infringer in a declaratory judgment action brought to clear our client’s right to use ARONEX. The Firm negotiated a settlement in which our client was permitted to continue to use ARONEX in its corporate name and on product labels.

We represented a prominent manufacturer of automotive products in a case brought against parties that were manufacturing and shipping infringing goods overseas for distribution. The Firm successfully affected ex parte seizures simultaneously at three locations, and secured a final judgment of statutory and common law trademark infringement, and damages in our client’s favor.

Our client, a prominent supplier of air conditioning and heating equipment and services, discovered a competitor using its trademark to confuse customers and pilfer business. The Firm was successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction and ultimately a permanent injunction and final judgment in our client’s favor.

The Firm’s client was accused of misappropriating the trademark of a Fortune 500 company. Following discovery, which focused on who had adopted and used the trademark first, a settlement was entered in which the plaintiff purchased our client’s trademark rights for $160,000.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The results obtained depend on the facts of your particular case. Every case is different. Similar results to those mentioned above may not be obtained in your case.